I was watching Fox News last night, and John Bolton (R-GOP-e) was asked to give a reply to a previously recorded clip from Rand Paul, and Bolton seemed to be acting as if the president (Obama) is the one who gets to wage war, while Congress just gets to merely declare and/or authorize it.

As if the president (be it Nixon, GHWB, or Clinton) sits on the throne and Congress' job is to merely place the crown on their heads and the scepter in their hands.

Once again, it seems as if another Republican goes to bat for Obama (like McCain and Grahamnesty do ad infinitum) when it comes to military matters. Like I have said, where have the Dems been? Why is it these two stooges (McCain, Graham) who keep traveling to the Middle East doing Obama's bidding?

And today on Fox-e News Sunday with Chris Wallace there -behold - was the all star lineup of Joe Lieberman, and the rest of the panel (Gen. Jack Keane, Jennifer Rubin and Charles Lane) with Lane being the only one who appeared to not be beating the war drums to the point where holes busted in them.

And on MSDNC-e, there he was, mega war hawk Bill Kristol, with pro-Obama Robert Gibby Gibbs in tow, and the rest doing the basic head nod.

In the end, if Congress says no, it's no. Period.

The Dems in the Senate are probably going to betray the majority of Democrat voters and just rubber stamp Obama's wishes, but it remains to be seen what Republicans do in the House of Reps...

I disagree that Bolton is GOP-e - as the author says. He may be in agreement with the GOP e in this particular case, but that’ a bit of a gratuitious swipe at a guy not afraid to call it the way he sees it.

5
posted on 09/01/2013 11:44:25 AM PDT
by C. Edmund Wright
(Tokyo Rove is more than a name, it's a GREAT WEBSITE)

Second, what he said is precisely what the Constitution provides. Congress, and only Congress, can declare war. The Congress can put whatever limitations they want on their declaration. The POTUS, as the CIC, is responsible for the conduct of the war.

There is the War Powers act (of dubious Constitutionality), in which the Congress has given its right to declare war to the POTUS in certain cases and with some restrictions and reporting requirements. It does not apply to Syria.

If Congress refuses to declare war, and Obama proceeds with an attack on Syria, then Obama is exceeding the powers granted to him.

Are you under the belief that it is the role of Congress to both declare AND conduct war?

The American people voted to give Obama the keys to the kingdom,so stop the complaining,he obviously is so far above the rest of the world,according to Valerie Jarrett,that he can foresee the future,just have faith FOLKS,stop the obstructions and let the man rule.After all what could possibly go wrong,our country will be stronger,more respected,and most important of all FEARED.They will all understand there is a LUNATIC in the White House

Lotta people on this forum think he's a tuff guy but all I see is a blustering loudmouth, always spoiling for a fight in some irrelevant buttsore of a country, probably where one of his friends owns a ranch.

Only the Congress has the power to declare war. That was put in the Constitution by men who knew that Kings were always looking to use the citizenry as fodder for some fight that would benefit the King and his buddies. Those who don't want to be fodder are supposedly represented in the Congress. Thus the requirement.

The War Powers Act of 1973 codifies what the President can do without Congress. It is power they ceded to him to be practical - things happen that supposedly just can't wait. But this one can.

Bolton is the kind of guy who sees every skirmish we're not involved in as the second coming of Munich, a sign of weakness that will lead to another iteration of some variant of the Third Reich. He knows a lot about the region, but is overly apt to think in neocon terms, that every foreigner is a blank slate waiting for us to write on. The reality, however, is that Syrian Sunnis don't want freedom for all - they want the freedom to step all over the Christians, Druze and Alawites in Syria, the way other Sunni Arab states do.

16
posted on 09/01/2013 11:57:37 AM PDT
by Zhang Fei
(Let us pray that peace be now restored to the world and that God will preserve it always.)

Bolton is a war hawk. He will always be in favor of demonstrating America’s status as a super-power. He, Cheney, and others do not believe the War Powers Act is constitutional. They believe the POTUS, whomever it is, as CIC, has the power to direct the use of force by the American military for a short period of time without authorization from Congress. (i.e. a stong Executive)

18
posted on 09/01/2013 11:58:19 AM PDT
by BuckeyeTexan
(There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)

Umm, just exactly whom do you believe it is that has the authority to order troops to engage in military strikes? It is not Congress, not Generals, not the Vice President, not the Speaker of the House. It is the President, Commander in Chief. Congress merely declares war and funds them

By the way this is not Obama's first military strike without Congress declaring war. He sent planes to bomb Libya.

There have been 11 Declarations of War by Congress, 2 were issued at the start and during WWI, and 6 were issued at the start of and during WWII, for a total of 5 wars.

Declaration of War with Great Britain, 1812 On June 17, 1812, Congress approved a resolution declaring war with Great Britain. The Senate approved the resolution by a vote of 19-13.

Declaration of War with Mexico, 1846 On May 12, 1846, Congress approved a resolution declaring war with Mexico. The Senate approved the resolution by a vote of 40-2.

Declaration of War with Spain, 1898 On April 25, 1898, Congress approved a resolution declaring war with Spain.

Declaration of War with Germany, 1917 On April 6, 1917, Congress approved a resolution declaring war with Germany. The Senate approved the resolution by a vote of 82-6 on April 4, 1917.

Declaration of War with Austria-Hungary, 1917 On December 7, 1917, Congress approved a resolution declaring war with Austria-Hungary. The Senate unanimously approved the resolution, 74-0.

Declaration of War with Japan, 1941 On December 8, 1941, Congress approved a resolution declaring war with Japan. The Senate unanimously approved the resolution, 82-0.

Declaration of War with Germany, 1941 On December 11, 1941, Congress approved a resolution declaring war with Germany. The Senate unanimously approved the resolution, 88-0.

Declaration of War with Italy, 1941 On December 11, 1941, Congress approved a resolution declaring war with Italy. The Senate unanimously approved the resolution, 90-0.

Declaration of War with Bulgaria, 1942 On June 4, 1942, Congress approved a resolution declaring war with Bulgaria. The Senate unanimously approved the resolution, 73-0.

Declaration of War with Hungary, 1942 On June 4, 1942, the Senate approved a resolution declaring war with Hungary. The Senate unanimously approved the resolution, 73-0.

Declaration of War with Rumania, 1942 On June 4, 1942, the Senate approved a resolution declaring war with Rumania. The Senate unanimously approved the resolution, 73-0.

“If he wants to command them against a sovereign state recognized by the US as legitimate, then Congress has to declare a state of war.”

Here’s my understanding. The president can engage any country for 90 days. By that time Congress must either declare war or back the president. If they don’t he has to stop.

Having said that, I don’t think there’s any mechanism to force the president to stop. Our system worked because all sides obeyed the law and the Constitution. If the president continues and the Senate will not convict on impeachment then I see no way to stop Obama.

Obama already blinked with regard to the War Powers Act. Had he wished to push the limits, he could have gone ahead and attacked and explained later.

But he decided to go ask Congress for support instead. Smart, politically...consider the options:

1. Approval is given. He now can claim bi-partisan support, full compliance with the Constitution, and will still claim credit for a favorable outcome and try to spread the blame around for an unfavorable one.

2. Congress fails to authorize action. Obama’s off the hook and it’s on them. Early tee time?

3. The House and Senate split, and no joint authorization is issued. This too puts Obama off the hook and gives him a perfect platform to blame obstructionalist Republicans.

Add it up, it’s Advantage Obama. The most risky move for him would have been to attack quickly under War Powers authorization, and he’s already backed away from that.

The question now is just how much of a propaganda/PR victory he can achieve out of this.

Bolton was once US rep to the United Nations. You do not get in that position unless you are Internationalist and Globalist...which are quite Liberal ideas. You think GW Bush would put in an Americanist?

Unfortunately too many see R next to a name and automatically claim “conservative”

43
posted on 09/01/2013 2:08:04 PM PDT
by SeminoleCounty
(You cannot be conservative while supporting the bankruptcy of your nation)

I have no problem with Bolton referred to as GOPe. You do not become US rep to United Nations unless by being a real conservative or Americanist. Not sure why folks think Bolton is conservative...other than he puts an “R” next to his name

Bolton will support Obama on all Internationalist and Globalist intervention

45
posted on 09/01/2013 2:10:55 PM PDT
by SeminoleCounty
(You cannot be conservative while supporting the bankruptcy of your nation)

Bolton was once US rep to the United Nations. You do not get in that position unless you are Internationalist and Globalist...which are quite Liberal ideas. You think GW Bush would put in an Americanist?

What an idiotic over generalized statement. We've had good UN Ambassadors before, and for the record, Bolton was attacked by all the liberals when Bush nominated him. Nice try....(actually, not very....)

47
posted on 09/01/2013 2:18:14 PM PDT
by C. Edmund Wright
(Tokyo Rove is more than a name, it's a GREAT WEBSITE)

Bolton’s right. That’s the law of the land, but there’s more ahead of us in the overall situation.

Its been obvious for a long time, that the majority of U.S. constituents with time and money for politics (the more vociferous of the 40 million or so receiving incomes from government) have no will fight foreign enemies. But they have been fantasizing much about exterminating their own neighbors at home. They dont realize that instead of any scenario of an end to the world, their own gluttonous lives are naturally very limited. Vanities...

48
posted on 09/01/2013 2:55:11 PM PDT
by familyop
(We Baby Boomers are croaking in an avalanche of corruption smelled around the planet.)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.